Discretion under sec. 13(6) of the Act allows courts to decide on striking out tenant's defense based on specific case circumstances.

1. The petitioner / plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against the respondent / defendant and also filed an application under S.13(6) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act , 1961 (for short 'the Act' ) stating inter alia that the defendant is not paying rent after receipt of summon of the trial Court and not even paying current rent and therefore, the defence of the defendant be struck off under the said provision. The trial Court by its impugned order dated 9-12-2015 held that there is serious dispute of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, issue has also been framed in that regard and question of relationship would be decided between the plaintiff and the defendant only after recording evidence and therefore the defence of the defendant cannot be struck off at this stage, and rejected the application filed under S.13(6) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied against the order rejecting the application under S.13(6) of the Act, this instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner / plaintiff under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Mr. Anand Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / plaintiff, would submit that the provision of S.13(6) of the Act is mandatory in nature and even if the tenant is disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant between them, yet he has to comply the provision contained in S.13(3) of the Act and continue to deposit the rent till the relationship is finally decided between the parties by that Court and therefore the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application under S.13(6) of the Act. He would rely upon a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Smt. Sona Bai and others v. Khoob Chand, AIR 1993 MP 173 to buttress his submission.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / defendant, would submit that the plaintiff' s brother Janak Lal Verma has filed suit against the plaintiff (i.e. his brother) for declaration of title and the respondent herein / defendant is tenant of Janak Lal Verma. He would further submit that the defendant is paying rent continuously to Janak Lal Verma and has also filed documents showing the details of deposit of rent to Janak Lal Verma and therefore if the defendant is directed to deposit rent, it will be causing great difficulty as he had already paid all the rent due to Janak Lal Verma. He would also submit that the provision of S.13(6) of the Act is not mandatory and is rather discretionary and in the fact situation of the present case, the trial Court is absolutely justified in exercising the discretion rejecting the application filed under S.13(6) of the Act whereas, the dispute of landlord - tenant between the parties is pending and the suit between the petitioner herein / plaintiff and his brother Janak Lal Verma to whom the respondent herein / defendant is paying rent is also pending which has been duly demonstrated before the trial Court.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties.

5. In order to decide the dispute, it would be appropriate to notice S.13(6) of the Act which reads as follows:

'(6) If a tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount as required by this Section, the Court may order the defence against eviction to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit, appeal or proceeding, as the case may be.'

6. A careful